Featured Articles

Chip’s Diaries

Henry ‘Chips’ Channon: The Diaries, 1918–38
Edited by Simon Heffer.
London: Hutchinson, 2021

In his 2008 book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War[1] Pat Buchanan suggests that with a bit of prescience and a steadier hand at the tiller Britain could have avoided World War II. If the policies supported by American-born MP and diarist Henry ‘Chips’ Channon had been adopted, that devastating European war would have been averted and Soviet communism might have been destroyed half a century before its fall.

Channon was born in Chicago in 1897 to a wealthy American family. His grandfather had started a Great Lakes shipping company. The young Channon spent two years at the University of Chicago before going to France to help with the war effort as a volunteer with the American Red Cross. He fell in love with Europe and never spent much time in America thereafter.

After the war he enrolled at Christ Church, Oxford where he received a degree in French and the nickname ‘Chips.’ Being a gentleman of that era Channon had no need to work for a living. As editor Simon Heffer notes “until he became a Member of Parliament in 1935 Channon seems to have had no job that paid him a salary” (XI). Not only did he have a family fortune, in 1933 he married money—Honor Guinness, an heiress to the brewing company.

Although very wealthy, Channon was not idle. He published three books between 1929 and 1933, two novels and a history, and was one the leading diarists of the twentieth century. The book considered here, 950 pages with thousands of footnotes supplied by editor Simon Heffer, is the first of a three-volume set of Channon’s journals. It covers the years 1918–1938. The second volume will cover the war years, and the third the post-war period until Channon’s death in 1958. There are three main areas of interest within these diaries. In ascending order: Chips’ personal life, his political ideology and views on Jews, and his involvement in British foreign affairs, especially with regard to relations with Nationalist Socialist Germany.

One puzzling aspect of Channon’s character was his sexuality. Editor Heffer describes him as bisexual. This is troubling because the authentic Right considers sexual deviance to be a serious social problem. There is little in this edition to indicate that Chips was other than heterosexual. He had an eye for feminine beauty and expressed that he was physically attracted to women. “Honor’s appearance was really fantastic . . . like a tousled Garbo” (656). He was deeply in love with his wife, at least during the early years of their marriage. He adored his son and wanted more children, though Honor did not. It is alleged that later in life, after his marriage failed, that he had several homosexual relationships. That period is not covered in this volume.

His sexuality aside, Channon’s diaries convey a lifestyle of European high society that is as gone with the wind as that of the antebellum South. It was a nearly all White, Eurocentric world populated by princes and princesses, lords and ladies. Even in the French Third Republic and the German Weimar Republic aristocrats and former royalty still used titles as part of their legal name. Though these titles conveyed no official privileges, those who possessed them formed a distinct social class. Money from commerce, if it was several generations old, could—but would not necessarily—permit one to enter. One example is Chips’ wife, Lady Honor Guinness daughter of Rupert Guinness, 2nd Earl of Iveagh. Though divided by politics and personalities, this was a society united by a general agreement on cultural norms. It was also a society of endless formal luncheons, dinner parties, elite entertainment, and trips aboard. Incidentally, if one has the means, entertaining is a great way to win friends and influence people. These people were privileged. It is ludicrous for the Left to speak of today’s struggling middle-class White families as privileged.

Channon’s political and social views were probably typical of right-wing Tories between the wars. He did not harbor an animus towards Blacks or Jews He occasionally socialized with Jews and had some commercial relationships with them, but he had a strong ethnic/cultural identity that viewed them as other. The expression of this consciousness was enough to cause consternation for those involved with the publication of these diaries. “The Trustees, editor and publisher deliberated at length whether to include or exclude such passages from this edition. After careful consideration, and consultation with external authorities [who might they be?] it was decided to leave them in, while seeking through the footnotes, to contextualize them” (XIV).

Henry ‘Chips’ Channon

The dreaded N word does appear once. In 1927, during one of his infrequent trips to America, Channon witnessed firsthand the so-called Harlem Renaissance. He writes, “New York is black mad.” He attends the new Broadway play “Porgy,” later turned into the musical “Porgy and Bess.” Chips notes, “a wonderful cast, all negroes.” In a footnote editor Heffer writes that the play portrayed the “culture of black Americans with what for the time was unusual sympathy and respect” (289). The play was based on a book by the same name written by a White southerner Edwin DuBose Heyward. Channon also mentions a book, Nigger Heaven that was published about this time. Also written by a White man, Carl Van Vechten, it did much to publicize the new urban Black culture of the 1920s. Certainly none of this suggests a deep antipathy towards Blacks.

There are examples of Channon’s mild “anti-Semitism” sprinkled throughout his diaries.  For instance, in January 1935 he remarks that Hannah Gubbay, ‘old black Hannah,’ had “hitched her wagon to cousin Philip Sassoon’s star—they are inseparable and always up to God knows what plots and plans and social schemes. A mysterious dark brace of Semites” (378). Three years later: “Poor Professor Loewenthal called here this afternoon to give us the crystal medallions of [his wife and son] Honor and Paul. He is dreary, gloomy, but the greatest artist since Benvenuto Cellini. He looks like one of the Pharaohs and carves in metals and precious stones. He is a refugee Jew” (900). As we will see below, Channon’s disapproval of Jews was principally political, but also cultural and aesthetic.

So what were Channon’s politics?  Today he might be considered a paleoconservative, but reactionary may be a better description. He was a vehement anti-communist at a time when Soviet-styled communism posed a real threat to Europe. He admired German culture, but was definitely not a Nazi. National Socialism was a revolutionary ideology and Channon supported the monarchy and aristocracy. This is why Chips was a firm Tory, not swayed in the least by Oswald Mosley’s fascism. Channon knew Mosley personally. He was a guest at a Channon dinner party in January 1935. The host writes, “Tom [Oswald Mosley] was charming and gentle and affectionate as he always is, except on the platform where he becomes the demagogue” (379).  Mosley’s ideology was too populist for Channon’s taste. Editor Heffer believes Channon simply “discounted as ineffectual” Mosley’s Blackshirts (543).

Channon was a strong believer in national sovereignty. Thus he had a poor opinion of the League of Nations, “a cursed body of busybodies” (486). He attended a League session in Geneva in September 1938. He saw the assembly as “an anti-German organization. The bars and lobbies of the League building are full of Russians and Jews who intrigue and dominate the press” (920). One of the Jews that Chips was referring to was Comrade Litvinov. “Meir Henoch Wallach-Finkelstein, who later took the nom de guerre Maxim Maximovich Litvinov (1876–1951), was the Soviet Union’s People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs from 1930 to 1939. . . From 1941 to 1943 he was Soviet Ambassador to the United States” (780n).

Channon considered Litvinov a loathsome creature, but later that month he dines “at Maurice de Rothschild’s, a dinner of seventeen—a rich congestionné house. . . . He lives with a young Jewess who is either his daughter, or adopted child, or mistress or all three!! [She was his mistress] . . . Everyone a touch tipsy with Rothschild wine . . . Even Maurice, our fat, sensual, slobbery, lecherous host is relieved that war is off! Or at least postponed” (924).

It is obvious that the common Jewish phenotype does not appeal to Channon’s aesthetic. While visiting his friend and former classmate at Oxford Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, he dines with the King of Bulgaria. “He looks a Jew, but is really trés Coburg, trés Orleans with the unpleasant traits of both houses” (931).  So in appearances, manners and politics, Channon and his crowd find Jews objectionable, but they offered little resistance to their growing wealth and power.

During the mid to late 1930s, British elites and the public generally were divided in their attitudes toward the Third Reich. The pro-German group that Channon supported became known as appeasers. Appeasement was an unfortunate label. It implies weakness and acquiesce. Rapprochement, realignment, readjustment, or reconciliation would have been better terms. As today, the Left possesses greater language skills and have been able to weaponize words, while the Right often has little feeling for language. In any case by the mid-30s many on the Right saw a powerful, prosperous Germany in central Europe as an asset. Channon believed that an alliance with Germany would be the best policy for Britain and for Europe. In September 1935 he wrote: “My secret [poorly kept secret] sympathies are ever with autocracies, and I’d rather have the Nazi-ism and Fascism on my side than Russian Soviets or tense, nervy croaking French Frogs. We seem not to know where our interests lie” (470). It is a bit ironic that Channon, who spent 1917–18 in France aiding the Allied war effort and who majored in French at college, had become anti-French by the mid-30s.

The era of good feeling between Britain and the Third Reich perhaps peaked during the Berlin Olympic Games in August 1936. The Channons and a number of other MPs and their wives were guests of the German government. Chips was not much of a sports fan, but he loved the lavish parties and the mass spectacles the regime provided. On August 6, their first day at the games, the crowds at the stadium were enthusiastic—ecstatic when Hitler arrived. Although the Fuhrer was physically unimposing, “One felt one was in the presence of some semi-divine creature” (557).

That evening the Channons attended a state banquet at the Berlin Opera House. The official hostess “Frau Göring, a tall, nearly naked, handsome woman was the principal figure and moved about amongst an obsequious crowd of royalties and ambassadors” (558). Two days later, Chips and Honor were the guests of Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German ambassador to Great Britain, later foreign minister. Attendees at the large luncheon included Lady Chamberlain, wife of the future prime minister.

On August 10, Channon’s trip included a visit to a “labour camp.”  As far as I can tell, this is the only instance where editor Simon Heffer’s scholarship fails him. Heffer, a well-known British journalist and historian, is considered a conventional conservative by UK standards. His thousands of footnotes are indispensable in identifying the people and events referred in the diaries. In a footnote Heffer suggests that Channon visited a Nazi prison camp that had been fixed up, a sort of Potemkin village, for the benefit of foreign visitors. It is obvious from Chips’ description that what he visited was a Reich Labor Service camp. Such a camp was comparable to a Civilian Conservation Corps camp established during the same period in America.

Channon writes that “the camp looked tidy, even gay, and the boys, all about 18, looked like the ordinary German peasant boy, fair, healthy, and sunburned. They are taught the preliminary military drills, gardening, etc., and health and strength are built up. They were all smiling and clean. . . . For 6 months they lived there, and all classes are mixed, which is an excellent system, its purpose is to wipe out class feeling, which has become practically non-existent in Germany” (563). Heffer claims that “The impression Channon had from his visit was entirely manipulated and bogus” (footnote, 562). Incredibly, none of the mainstream reviews picked up on Heffer’s editorial mistake.

Channon is in love with the new Germany. The next day, after another excursion to the countryside, he writes: “In Germany joys are simple, sun and water bathing, Wurst and beer, all pleasant, all attainable for little. What a country. It stirs me so sharply” (563). He has a “preference for the Teutonic races. . . . There is a common blood affinity between us and the Germans and Austrians. I like their lusty warm-blooded love of country, children, dogs, power—and a thousand other reasons” (563). In the following days the Channons attend formal dinners at the Ribbentrops, the Görings (with 700-800 guests), and Dr. and Magda Goebbels’ Sommerfest. The closing ceremonies were on August 16. “The crowds were enormous, and really amazingly well controlled . . . there were processions, the orchestra played, Hitler rose, the great torch faded out, the crowd 140,000-strong sang ‘Deutschland über Alles’, with arms uplifted. There was a shout, a speech or two, night fell and the Olympic Games, the great German display of power and bid for recognition, was over. Mankind has never staged anything so terrific, or so impressive “(569).  Exhausted from all parties and ceremonies the Channons left Berlin on August 18th and headed for the Austrian Alps for a quiet vacation.

While Chips was wowed by National Socialist Germany what he really wanted was a Hohenzollern restoration! The ideal scenario for him was for Hitler to be given a green light to move east and smash Bolshevism. Then, after the Fuhrer’s death or retirement, Channon’s friend Fritzi, Friedrich of Prussia, Grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, would become ruler of an enlarged German empire.

It is not possible to tell from the diaries how strong and widespread pro-German sentiments were at the time. Obviously Winston Churchill and some other MPs were opposed to a resurgent of Germany. From 1936 onward Channon notes Churchill’s increasing animosity towards the Third Reich. Was he working for Jewish interests as some have charged? Or did he simply not want a strong state in central Europe to rival British influence on the continent? In May 1936, after attending a play the Channons, Churchill, and some French and German guests had “sandwiches and drinks. The French Ambassador, Durckheim [a German diplomat] and Winston Churchill had a conversation which was really rather unpleasant, as Winston attacked Germany” (516). In July of 1937 Channon writes that Churchill’s “fear and dislike of [Germans] amount to an obsession, and threaten to seriously to undermine his judgement” (728). It is not an exaggeration to say that by 1938 Churchill wanted war.

A few additional words on Churchill: Already in early 1936 Channon identifies him as a prime mover in the anti-German group. Pat Buchanan, in the work cited above, also sees Churchill as the one most strongly pushing for confrontation with Germany. Churchill, of course, was not a man on the Left. He was a Tory, a conservative, an aristocrat, and an imperialist. Despite his skillful rhetoric he, at times, exercised monumentally poor judgement as the graves at Gallipoli attest. Channon wrote in 1938: “Is my world collapsing? Winston as PM would be worse than war. The two together would mean the destruction of civilization” (933). To paraphrase Buchanan, Churchill’s Pyrrhic victory over Germany in 1945 lost Britain its empire and lost the West the world. It is poetic justice that in 2020, a woke mob that he helped make possible, vandalized his statue in Parliament Square.

In March 1938 Channon “had a sparring match with [fellow MP] Harold Nicolson who was in a rage. Like all old women, he is having a change of life. His hatred of Germany is fanatical” (832). Several months later Channon reports that “Simon Harcourt-Smith [a career diplomat] tells me the Foreign Office is red, is trying to sabotage Halifax” who is trying to accommodate Germany. More about Lord Halifax below. At one point, Channon sees more grassroots support for Germany than elite support. “The Foreign Office, the ‘intelligentsia’, London society, Bloomsbury and a very large section of the [House of Commons] are pro-French, but the country as a whole is pro-German” (543).

The diaries record many pro-German contacts Channon had during the 1935–1938 period. To start at the top, Channon was friends with King Edward VIII who had a very positive attitude toward the new Germany. Unfortunately, he also had a very short reign, and abdicated in December 1936 in order to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice divorced American woman—another instance of a royal insisting on marrying an unsuitable mate. Earlier that year Chips had lunch with Joachim von Ribbentrop and his wife at a “pan-German festival” (519). He notes that Frau von Ribbentrop wore no makeup in the new German style. A few weeks later: “The Londonderrys [Charles Stewart, 7th Marquis of Londonderry] are very pro-German; and, indeed who isn’t?—except the Coopers [Alfred Duff Cooper, 1935 Secretary of State for War, 1937 First Lord of the Admiralty]” (519).  Another of Chips’ friends, Arthur Charles Wellesley, 5th Duke of Wellington, “was a committed pro German, and a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship” (528n).

In November 1937 Edward Wood, Lord Halifax, attended the International Hunting Exhibition in Berlin hosted by Hermann Göring. Incidentally, the racial ecologist and sportsman Madison Grant was also invited and planned to attend this event, but sadly fell ill and died shortly before the opening.  Although born with only one hand, Halifax, with the help of a prosthetic, became a skilled equestrian and marksman. He went to Germany as unofficial deputy foreign secretary (he became Foreign Secretary the following year). After the exhibition, he met with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. There he told the Führer that Prime Minister Chamberlain would not be opposed to Anschluss with Austria or to the transfer of Sudetenland and Danzig to Germany as long as it was accomplished peacefully. A couple weeks after his return Halifax told Chips that “he liked all the Nazis, even Goebbels! whom nobody likes. He was much impressed, interested, and amused by the visit” (786).

The diary identifies a number of other pro-German personalities of the time. Neville Meyrick Henderson, who was British ambassador to Germany (1937–1939) was supportive of the new Germany. Channon writes: “He is pro-German, anti-French, anti-Jew, pro-Italian, and, indeed thinks along the lines I do” (746). There was also some support from the British press such as George Ward Price, foreign correspondent for the Daily Mail, and Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times. From the pulpit there was Dean William Ralph Inge of St. Paul’s Cathedral and former professor of divinity at Cambridge. “He was a strong advocate of eugenics and nudism and rejected democracy, fearing it would bring mob rule” (877n).They don’t make clergy like that anymore!

So what happened? Why did Britain declare war on Germany in September 1939? This journal ends on September 30, 1938 with the signing of the Munich Accords. The next volume is due out later this year. A very rough sketch of the path to war sees Germany occupying Prague in March 1939. In response, Britain pledges to guarantee Poland’s sovereignty. Britain knew they did not have the means to protect Poland, but they hoped to deter German expansion. If not, the treaty would be a tripwire for war. Hitler wagered that his invasion of Poland would not trigger a wider war which he did not want.  Both sides gambled, both sides lost.

Channon, as mentioned earlier, wanted Britain to ally with Germany, giving the latter a free hand in the east. But he was a backbencher with little official authority. He did, however, have connections. The Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, was his wife’s uncle. Chips was also parliamentary assistant to Rab Butler, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Butler opposed war in September 1939 and was willing to sacrifice Polish independence to avoid a wider conflict. On the other side, Hitler’s mistake was to force the pace of events, to press forward too far too fast, and to risk everything on one roll of the dice. Commentators as diverse as Sir Arthur Keith and Henry Kissinger believe that if the Fuhrer had had a little more patience and played the long game he would have achieved his goals.

Although many academic historians would disagree, most laymen believe that the study of history should have some utility. So what is useful in reading Channon’s diaries? Besides moaning about what the leaders of the time should have done to avoid a disastrous internecine struggle, we can see from these journals that the values espoused by National Socialist Germany resonated with a significant segment of British society. Today the establishment considers these values be to so reprehensible as to be indications of extreme moral depravity.

As for a recommendation: These diaries are most suitable for serious students of interwar Britain. Much of the partisan politics of the era are of limited interest today. There is quite a bit of material on Edward’s abdication for royal watchers. A good deal of the text is taken up with Channon’s personal and social life. At times his relationship with Honor has a soap opera quality. As for Henry Channon the man, I found it hard not to have a certain affinity and admiration for him. Sure, he was a snob, a social climber, a name dropper, but he was no dilettante. He knew history and was a perceptive observer of people and events.


[1] Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (New York: Crown Books, 2008).

The Logic of Leftist Lies: How the Ideas of a White Genius Can Expose the True Intentions of the Left

Globohomo is the vast system of anti-White, minority-worshipping leftism that wants to control and suffocate the entire world. And if you want a good example of the “globo” in globohomo, just consider this. At school in the UK, White British students are taught all about the Black American non-entity Rosa Parks (1913–2005) and nothing about the White British genius George Boole (1815–64).

Whites as oppressors and exploiters

In other words, British leftists import globohomo propaganda from America to instil guilt in White children and resentment in non-White children. At the same time, they suppress the huge achievements of the White British. Leftists don’t want White children to feel pride in their ancestry, but shame. They want children to see Whites only as oppressors and exploiters, not as innovators and inventors. That’s why they plug Parkes and ban Boole, even as children inhabit a world shaped by his genius:

Boole’s legacy surrounds us everywhere, in the computers, information storage and retrieval, electronic circuits and controls that support life, learning and communications in the 21st century. His pivotal advances in mathematics, logic and probability provided the essential groundwork for modern mathematics, microelectronic engineering and computer science. (Who is George Boole? The mathematician behind the Google doodle, Sydney Morning Herald, 2nd November 2015)

The White genius George Boole

Boole has had a “Google doodle,” but Google and other leftists celebrate him only as an isolated and exceptional individual, not as an exemplar of White genius and the heir to millennia of separate and special evolution on the European continent. Leftists certainly do not acknowledge that he contributed more to mathematics and technology in his short life than all Blacks who ever lived. If White children were taught about him in that light, they would begin to question minority-worship and the colonization of Britain by non-Whites who over-achieve only at crime, corruption and nation-wrecking.

Knights and knaves

Even worse, from the leftist point of view, is that learning about Boole can be a lot of fun. Imagine White children enjoying themselves as they learn about a White world-shaper! Leftism wants Whiteness to be associated with pain, not pleasure. And so, when leftism is defeated, pro-White education ministers should ensure that children learn about knights-and-knaves, not about Rosa Parks. Not only are knight-and-knave logic puzzles an enjoyable introduction to Boolean ideas about truth-values and logic, they’re also a good way to understand leftism.

Some Boolean logic

You can learn the truth from leftist lies if you apply Boolean ideas. To see how, let’s start with one of the knight-and-knave puzzles invented by the Jewish mathematician Raymond Smullyan (1919–2017). The puzzle is set on an island inhabited by two kinds of native: knights, who always tell the truth, and knaves, who always lie. Suppose you visit the island and decide to take a walk to the beach. Soon you come to a fork in the road where two natives of the island are standing. You want to ask them how to get to the beach, but you don’t know whether they’re knights or knaves. And there’s no point asking them directly, because, as you quickly realize, all natives will claim to be knights.

However, suppose you ask each of the two natives what the other one is. And suppose that each of them replies: “He’s a knave.” Now you know that one of them must be a knight and one must be a knave. If they were both knights or both knaves, both would reply: “He’s a knight.” But when both claim that the other is a knave, you know a knight has truthfully identified a knave and a knave has falsely identified a knight. But you don’t still know who is who. However, you can now learn the right way to the beach by asking either of the natives a simple question. What do you ask?

The logic of leftist lies

You use an indirect question and ask one of the natives to tell you which way the other native would point if you asked him the way to the beach. Suppose the righthand fork in the road leads to the beach. If you asked the knight directly which fork led to the beach, he would point to the right; if you asked the knave directly, he would point to the left. So a direct question is no good to you. But if you ask the indirect question of the knight, he will truthfully point left, because this is the way the knave would indeed point. And if you ask the indirect question of the knave, he will lie and also point left, because this is not the way the knight would point. Therefore, whether you ask the indirect question of the knight or the knave, you will learn the wrong direction to the beach. And if you know the wrong direction, you automatically know the right direction.

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks at the Justice Department in Washington, on Tuesday, June 15, 2021. (Win McNamee/Pool via AP)

If the sinister Jewish leftist Merrick Garland opposes “white supremacy,” it must be a good and essential thing

Knight-and-knave puzzles are a lot of fun to solve, but there are serious and important mathematical and logical ideas behind them. Boolean ideas, because they come from the work of George Boole. Using Boolean logic, you can learn the truth from falsehoods. And that’s I want to do to leftist ideas. We know that leftism is an ideology built on falsehoods, so we can apply Boolean logic to understand what leftists really mean when they use terms like “white supremacy” and “white privilege.” Leftists are liars, so what they pretend to mean and what they really mean are different things. Indeed, entirely opposite things.

So let’s examine how leftists use the term “white supremacy.” Merrick Garland, the sinister Jewish Attorney-General in Biden’s Bolshevik cabinet, has said that “Domestic violent extremist groups, particularly white supremacists, pose a growing threat to the United States.” Carol Anderson, a Professor of African American Studies at Emory University, has said that “American democracy’s most dangerous adversary is white supremacy. Throughout this nation’s history, white supremacy has undermined, twisted and attacked the viability of the United States.” And Jennifer Ho, a Professor of Asian American Studies at the University of Colorado, has responded to Black violence against Asians by blaming it all on Whitey. She says that “White supremacy is the root of all race-related violence in the US.”

The power of propaganda #1: ever-increasing use of the term “white supremacy” (from Google Ngrams)

So what do leftists mean by the term “white supremacy”? You have to start by recognizing that leftists are liars, so their language inverts the truth. If leftists say that “white supremacy” is “a growing threat to the United States” and “American democracy’s most dangerous adversary,” they must mean that “white supremacy” is the opposite of a threat to the United States and the opposite of an adversary to American democracy. Therefore they must mean that the United States and American democracy depend on “white supremacy” in some way. So what can “white supremacy” mean but “white autonomy” and “white achievement”? That is, when leftists condemn “white supremacy,” they are condemning the civilization built by Whites and the ability of Whites to act in their own interests and possess their own nations, institutions and property.

The power of propaganda #2: ever-increasing use of the term “white privilege” (from Google Ngrams)

But it gets worse. Leftists don’t merely condemn “white supremacy”: they want to overturn and abolish it. But if they want to abolish “white supremacy,” that is, White autonomy, this can only mean that they want to destroy White civilization and enslave ordinary Whites. If you don’t have autonomy, can’t act in your interests, and don’t possess your own nations, institutions and property, what are you but a slave? “Abolishing white supremacy” can only mean enacting White enslavement.

Leftism is doomed to die

The same reasoning applies to the leftist concept — and condemnation – of “white privilege.” If “white privilege” is a bad thing to leftists, it can only be a good thing in reality. And it is: “white privilege” means the entirely natural and just way in which the White creators and sustainers of White nations act in their own interests to maintain those nations for the benefit of themselves and their children. When leftists say that they want to abolish “white privilege,” they really mean that they want to take White nations away from ordinary Whites. As before, “abolishing white privilege” means enacting white enslavement.

In effect, leftism presents us with a simple knight-and-knave puzzle. We know that leftists always lie, so we simply turn what they say on its head to discover the truth. From leftist lies we can learn the truth about leftist intentions. When leftists say “Abolish white supremacy!”, they mean “Enact white enslavement!” Leftists don’t want to end injustice but to impose it on ordinary Whites in ever-harsher ways. And at the heart of that anti-White leftism are genuinely “supremacist” Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). If we apply leftist-lie logic to the name of the ADL, we can see that it must really be the “Anti-Description League.” The ADL campaigns against the objective and truthful description of reality, which is why it wants truth-tellers like Tucker Carlson to be silenced:

The Anti-Defamation League has called for Fox News to fire prime-time opinion host Tucker Carlson because he defended a white-supremacist theory that says whites are being “replaced” by people of color. In a letter to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott on Friday, the head of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, said Carlson’s “rhetoric was not just a dog whistle to racists – it was a bullhorn.”

The civil rights group listed numerous instances Carlson has used anti-immigrant language. Those include saying immigration makes the U.S. “poorer and dirtier” and questioning whether white supremacy is real. Greenblatt said that “given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to go.”

The white-nationalist “great replacement theory,” otherwise known as “white genocide,” says people of color are replacing white people through immigration in the Western world, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC]. Some white supremacists also say that Jews and progressive politicians are furthering this change, the civil rights group says. (ADL: Fox should fire Carlson for white-supremacist rhetoric, WSBTV, 9th April 2021)

The ADL and SPLC are supreme practitioners of the Jewish-leftist principle of inverting reality and morality. They claim that truth is lies and that lies are truth, that good is evil and evil is good. Accordingly, you can learn the truth by reversing what the ADL and SPLC say. If they deny that “immigration makes the U.S. ‘poorer and dirtier’,” you can be sure that immigration does exactly that. If they deny that “Jews and progressive politicians … are replacing white people through immigration in the Western world,” again you can be sure that this is exactly what is happening. And if they oppose “white supremacy” and claim that it is a dire threat to Western civilization, you can be sure that “white supremacy” is a good thing and essential for the survival of Western civilization. Leftists live by lies, which is why leftism is doomed to die.

The Siege on Christmas: A Time-Honored Kosher Tradition

Introduction

If there’s one American tradition that’s lasted well over one century, it is the persistent, serious, subtle, highly organized, and even insidious attack on Christmas. As we read the Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper archives from 1907, we discover a full page devoted to this subject, and an article titled “Church Mass Meeting Wants Christmas Songs”, which frames a reactionary measure by the Christian community to defend the singing of Christmas songs in the public schools. When we read characterization of the meeting as “radical anti-Semitic addresses [by two of the reverends]…which betokened discomfort and dissent”, it is not surprising that this paragraph ends, “This feeling was finally voiced by Dr. Cadman, who admonished the speakers that the meeting was not intended as an attack on the Jews”. For it was Jews in the spotlight of school boards, engaged on a mission to enforce separation of church and state. We invite the reader to enter a time capsule, and discover the controversy here:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/49250485/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle/

Even as late as 1907, this particular Brooklyn community considered themselves culturally a Christian nation, where the Christian religion and lessons of Christ grounded their people with wholesome morals and values. They would soon find that their First Amendment would be their Achilles’ heel, a tool for Jews to perform Nikkur (deveining performed in kosher slaughter) on all matters Christmas-related in the public institutions and square.1

Indulge our perceptive curiosity: We do not easily find leaders from the Hindu community raising a stink. With all the U.S. propaganda that China is an imminent threat, we do not hear ferocious calls from the Taoist or Buddhist community challenging the festivities of the winter season. And even after the 9/11 attack on our homeland, we do not detect loud reverberating echoes of Muslims denouncing the last vestiges of Christian culture that may still be present. Instead, the relentless siege appears almost exclusively a “kosher affair,” and when the activists are atheists or agnostics, often they too are ethnically Jewish. In fact, we must conclude that the predominance of Jews challenging Christmas in the American media correlates to a time honored tradition that is probably part of their greater service to humanity, Tikkun Olam, repairing the world. The rumblings within the public Boards of Education in 1907 have graduated to the cultural acceptance of mainstream comedy hammering away, like the 2005 standup act by Sarah Silverman stating that “I hope the Jews did kill Christ! I’d [expletive] do it again in a second!,” to HBO’s reprehensible desecration of Christmas found in the heavily Jewish production “Santa Inc.,” a cartoon TV series that undoubtedly will corrupt some children along the way. We are witnessing today the “progress” that Rev. Allan Douglas Carille and Rev. James M. Farrar feared most. Can you blame them?

Parallels

But an interesting development paralleled this siege on Christmas. You see, there was no such thing as mass kosher certification in 1907, and there was no circled “U” kosher seal (Hebrew: “hekhsher”) stamping the products of most everything purchased for sustenance. There were “blue laws” restricting commercial activities on Sundays, making it a day of rest, and making it pretty damn difficult to buy goods or services on that day. That was a Christian thing. But one hundred and fourteen years later we find ubiquitous kosher seals in our marketplace and everything and anything open for business on Sunday, with the exception of Chick-Fil-A.2 For anyone familiar with old, culturally Christian America, this swap signifies quite an impressive display of power, influence and change.

Other developments with predominantly Jewish influence included the motion picture industry, television, advertising, consumerism, sports, entertainment, gambling, “civil rights,” “social justice,” and even legalized pornography. The train had left the station while taking in mass immigration, and it wasn’t long before easy divorce, even easier abortions, drug-infested youths, organized crime, Sackler-family-aided opioid destruction, and total war would affect our families and transform our nation further.  It’s as if the software to our Christian culture had been hacked. America was hijacked!

We’ve previously highlighted “The Double Standards of Kosher” that prevail in the labels and certification seals found on our packaged food at “secular” supermarkets vis-à-vis the typical kosher markets.3 Kosher certification is so dominant that our supermarkets may as well be renamed koshermarkets. We’ve also posted social media challenges to the ongoing use of tax payer dollars funding kosher (and halal) programs in the public schools, ironically in the same city where purging Christmas began in 1907.

The New York Board of Education has no problem with this injection of religious particularism

In fact, we challenge any American parent out there to produce a milk carton from a public school that IS NOT under rabbinical control, NOT bearing a kosher seal! And so it is becoming blatantly clear that double standards and hypocrisy are not things that the Jewish community are concerned about. We have found that when we have ironclad examples that “embarrass,” the trolls simply go away, and they employ censorship or silent treatment to maintain the status quo and quash our awareness efforts. Any Christian constituency looking for fair treatment should themselves reflect that even in this old newspaper article it was mentioned that the Christians were greatly divided. That is the score: a disunited Majority against a persistent Minority. Today, all we can do is document our grievance. So let this essay be a lesson for our collective future.

But how do they feel about Christmas songs?

Winter Solstice

Winter Solstice has bequeathed a warm and cozy feeling to the cultural heritage of Europeans, complete with all the Yuletide spirit that celebrated the return of the sun in pagan traditions. Evergreen boughs reminded the ancient Europeans of everlasting life, or of all the green plants that would flourish in the summer. The transition to a Christian Europe would keep intact these early cultural practices in December. Yuletide festivities would not only remain, but even grow. Evergreen trees would soon be brought into the homes, and those who claim Europe as their ancestral homeland probably consider these traditions the most cherished of all. The majority of Americans fall into this group, and one man from Maine found inspiration from this winter décor.

“When Merrill Worcester, a wreath-maker from Maine, started a tradition of placing thousands of wreaths on veterans’ headstones in Arlington National Cemetery nearly 30 years ago, he couldn’t have known that out of his sense of honor and duty this mission would be born”, starts Karen Worcester, Executive Director of Wreaths Across America (WAA), as she welcomes new supporters and thanks them for taking interest in her organization. For in all the verbiage explaining the details of WAA, there is no hint of a religious association.

Instead, we see the following:

Basic mission statement of Wreaths Across America

The Siege Continues: Christian Gang Signs

With all the preceding as a background, it should be no surprise that we come across one Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), featured on a Fox News story dated December 14, 2021: “Religious Freedom Groups Says Wreaths Across America Violating Veteran Religious Liberties.” Mr. Weinstein, “a Jewish agnostic who prays three times a day in Hebrew,”4 is an Air Force Academy graduate and former JAG attorney who has been very active taking on cases that enforce the separation of church and state within the military. While his Senior Research Director at MRFF and Contributor to HuffPost, Chris Rodda, exclaims that their organization is not conducting a “war on Christmas,”5 a perusal of his major cases appear to involve Christians.

From the Fox News story, Mr. Weinstein: “Fine if you want your wreath, but then you make sure that you’ve either requested one from Wreaths Across America or that…Wreaths Across America has had express or explicit approval to do it. We’re not saying you can’t, but you cannot blanket it like thatThat’s like carpet bombing! And to many of us that are not Christians and our clients, you know we don’t look for this ourselves, that looks like a Christian gang sign…that you’re creating territory, that is a Christian territory.”

Mr. Weinstein compares this to “Carpet Bombing”

Mr. Weinstein continues:

“Our view is that if you want to put a wreath on veteran’s grave, that’s fine. But then you must first request that, or you make sure that (in this case) Wreaths Across America has absolute empirical and express approval to do so.”

Karen Worcester, Executive Director of WAA (2018 reportable compensation for her 40 hours per week: $0) defends her mission in this Fox News story: “You have to be respectful for other people’s culture…and come together and teach our children. Our children are watching us. It’s important to teach with respect and that’s part of our mission: to teach kids to care and to learn the history and heritage.”

And Ms. Worcester continues: “We’ve always had a policy since the first wreaths were laid in 1992 to not place wreaths on the graves with the Star of David to show respect.”

And that’s where Mr. Weinstein is shown insinuating that WAA is nothing but a grift. Ms. Worcester responds: “We have been audited by the IRS several times. We’re up to snuff. We are probably the most transparent organization you’ll ever see!”

So in the course of this video interview on mainstream “conservative” television, we have witnessed the continued siege on Christmas, this time within the military milieu. Wreaths are equated to Christian gang signs. Wreath laying on gravestones is equated to carpet bombing, and a popular national non-profit is hinted as being a less-than-transparent racket of some sorts.

The KosChertified Take

Since 1923, the food, kitchen supply, and detergent industry has been inundated with obscure  kosher seals. We counted 635 agencies in the United States alone, and many of them use trademarked certification symbols that are mysterious to most shoppers. Our surveys indicate that maybe as few as ten percent savvy shoppers can even recognize the most popular hekhsher, that of OU Kosher, which certifies over one million items as “fit and proper for Jews”. There may be plenty of lawyers of Weinstein’s ilk ready to defend this pervasive practice despite our consumer research pointing it to a deceptive trade practice, but when we look at how the scheme has pervaded the military commissary, we find ourselves wondering if Mr. Weinstein would call these mysterious symbols Judaic gang signs?

A sampling of probably hundreds of trademarked kosher seals, these being the most common

Large wreaths placed on the front of military grave stones are a very transparent activity, allowing MRFF an easy time to analyze which graves have received the seasonal accents, in case there was a mistake. But our Quantitative Study on Kosher Certification revealed that on thirty percent of labeling with kosher seals, the certification was found on the back or sides, not readily apparent to consumers. Since the military commissary sells mostly mainstream brands, we would expect the same results there. Transparency was the primary focus of our research, and we doubt that many young recruits can spot kosher seals found where they least expect one, such as inedible detergents, or without the use of a magnifying glass! Yes, we have shown that the hekhshers found on package labels sharing other certification seals (e.g. NON-GMO, Gluten-Free, Good Housekeeping, etc.) average just ten percent the measurable seal area of the others.

Kosher-certified dishwashing detergent; Arrow points to the tiny hekhsher (kosher seal), and few consumers know that most name brand dish soaps are under rabbinical supervision

We have surveyed several large sections of packaged food found at the commissaries, and too many were 100% kosher-certified! Take for instance the dry pasta section, where we found the military offering the following: Barilla, Mueller’s, Ancient Harvest, Ronzoni, and Freedom’s Choice. Given that each and every brand listed was under rabbinical control and supervision, the only choices for the service member or their family would be kosher certified or certified kosher! This is hardly a choice that reflects freedom of religion in a government operation that is not supposed to show bias towards any one religion, in this case Judaism. It is especially surprising that the Freedom’s Choice brand, a Defense Commissary Agency product, would not be neutral to religious oversight of food, as kosher certification submits to the Torah and Talmud, granting rabbis the ultimate say over ingredients, sourcing, and production methods…even the machinery lubrication!

The entire dry pasta section of this military commissary is kosher certified; There is no choice outside of supporting Judaism and the Talmud
Kosher seals (see bottom right of package) are not yet required by Fair Packaging Law to be conspicuous, as the “NET WT 16 OZ” is

The same religious bias was found in canned vegetables at the commissary, a product that would likely be considered a common or essential purchase for many consumers. And when we examined the kosher seal on the government agency’s Freedom’s Choice (all certified by OU Kosher), what did we find? Suspiciously low symbol transparency! Can they print that hekhsher with any fainter ink? We would ask Mr. Weinstein if MRFF considered this an unfair scheme for our soldiers and sailors to decipher? It appears that rejecting indirect contributions to Jewish programs and inconspicuous strange markings is not practical, or even feasible on a military base.

We found all canned vegetables at the military commissary were kosher-certified, including Defense Commissary Agency products; There were no religiously neutral offerings
That kosher seal looks very faint; No “KOSHER CERTIFICATION SERVICE” displayed. Why not?
kosher
When kosher seal areas are measured against other certification seals and objects found on package labels
The circled “U” seal for OU Kosher (as seen on their Twitter page)

Now we get to the juicy part where we know MRFF will jump in with patriotic fervor to bring justice. Yes, we know that the manufacturers are complicit in hiring these kosher agencies for their religious services, and so this would equate to Mr. Weinstein insisting that WAA receive “express or explicit approval to do it.” But the difference we make is with the end user: Wreath laying is extremely transparent, deceased soldiers can’t check a box on a Terms of Service, and finding their living family members may prove impossible. Meanwhile, the existing kosher scheme keeps commissary consumers unaware of the religious stranglehold over their purchases. And where does all that kosher revenue flow? We just don’t know for sure because the IRS grants exemptions for disclosing the accounting numbers for such religious organizations. We may never know how much the directors at OU Kosher earn in this current system, but we’ll presume it’s not as high as Mr. Weinstein’s 2018 compensation at MRFF: $368,393. This president, putting in 105 hours per week (i.e., 15 hours per day, seven days per week) is one hard working guy! With type “A” motivation like that, we are sure he will help our cause to bring true separation of church and state when it is revealed that OU Kosher’s umbrella group, the Orthodox Union of Jewish Congregations, was resolutely supporting the most damaging spy our nation has convicted in recent times!

OU Kosher is a program of this religious mega organization
Multiple “Resolutions” of OU have listed support for convicted spy Jonathan Pollard; OU employs a powerful Advocacy program with “open door” access to key congressional influencers

We must wonder how our military service members would feel if they knew that government commissary agencies were wholeheartedly patronizing non-profits that support those that subverted our nation? And if they are staunch advocates of convicted spies, are they currently supporting spies that haven’t been caught yet?

We would be curious if Mr. Weinstein, growing up in a Jewish family, was always well aware of how pervasive kosher certification had become in the general supermarket? And while Gentile or Christian Americans, regular citizens or military personnel have much of this phenomena concealed from easy noticing, the same industry in Israel has fallen under great scrutiny for its high levels of corruption.6 Can we assume the same is happening on U.S. soil?

Does advocating for Israel have to include support for spying against the United States? Also, should a non-profit enjoying generous IRS exemptions be allowed to publicly advocate for a foreign nation?

Conclusion

In our opinion, religious freedom begins with the living, not the dead! While MRFF can arouse mainstream media to give them a platform to chip away at Christmas amidst cemeteries and wreaths, we have brought to light important religious freedom issues that affect our currently serving troops and veterans every day. We agree that countless American Jews might cringe at the thought of a wreath accidentally placed before the gravestone of their deceased war veteran. Similarly, Non-Jews may want their First Amendment freedom to avoid kosher certification for the myriad reasons we’ve listed, and the intrigue of kosher certification serves as a slap in the face to our patriots who may be too naïve, too apolitical, unconcerned, or simply not informed enough to objectively analyze the products that are offered on a military base. They deserve a choice of products that are religiously neutral. Lastly, rabbis have been collecting great sums of money for these kosher certification services for nearly one century, and we are long overdue to witness a public audit! Consumers are afforded absolutely zero transparency in the kosher costs and money flow, and so calling this underhanded enterprise “the ultimate grift” would not be beyond the pale. Wreaths Across America, on the other hand, looks like Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity in comparison! We applaud their benevolent volunteerism and beautifying of our military cemeteries.

Mr. Weinstein continues his people’s time-honored tradition, one that began no later than 1907, and Christmas is further eroded by means of pilpul, losing its authentic meaning while the season sheds more of its evergreen needles and European ties to nature. We invite the Military Religious Freedom Foundation to take up our case with government authorities, helping defend our military troops against the carpet bombing by kosher seals (and yes, you can quote us on that). But as a modicum of compromise, perhaps MRFF can force the military to issue, along with their rifle, one Kosher Supervision Guide and the KosChertified? App for every enlistment. Anything otherwise might be tacit approval of Kosher Supremacy, ceding every military base to Judaic rule, creating ever more Jewish territory.

This Kosher Supervision Guide can help our military troops and their families identify any of the hundreds of obscure symbols they may come across
The KosChertified? App addresses The Kosher Question, and offers a unique database of NKC products – NOT Kosher Certified – so our military troops and their families can “Exercise Their Dietary Free Will”


Reposted from KosChertified?, with permission.

1Nikkur: The procedure contained within the Jewish practice of Shechita of removing the major blood vessels, nerves, and forbidden fats from a kosher-slaughtered animal. In Yiddish, this process is called “treibering”. The basis for this practice is found in Leviticus 7:23, and it is usually performed by the Shochet. Due to the particularism of Jewish law, “Only about 30 percent of slaughtered animals can be used for kosher distribution.” (Source: https://kosherquest.org/is-it-kosher/shechita/)

2http://thekosherquestion.com/#!our-blog/chick-fil-a-cares

3https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/09/24/the-double-standards-of-kosher/

4https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-megyn-kelly-mikey-wein_b_5240896

5https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mikey-weinstein-a-traitor_b_1172823

6https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4891347,00.html

Joyeux Noёl: The Beginnings of WWI and the Christmas Truce of 1914

MerryChristmasfilmPoster3

Editor’s note: Christmas is a special time of year, and over the years TOO has posted some classic articles that bear on the season. This article by F. Roger Devlin was originally posted in December, 2013. It is an important reminder of the disastrous intra-racial wars of the twentieth century—wars that may yet deal a death blow to our people and culture given the processes that they set in motion. 

With the hindsight offered by ninety-nine years, it is obvious that the outbreak of the World War I marked not merely the beginning of the most destructive war in history up to that time, but a fundamental civilizational watershed. While the fighting was going on, nearly all participants assumed they had been forced into the struggle by naked aggression from the other side. It took historians years to unravel what had actually happened.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the German Army was the best in Europe, capable of defeating any individual rival. Yet Germany had no natural borders, and was vulnerable to a joint attack on two fronts: by France and Britain in the West and the Russian Empire in the East. A German defeat was considered virtually inevitable in such a scenario.

The Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, which became the Triple Entente when Britain joined in 1907, realized Germany’s worst fears.

However, there were important differences between Germany’s Western and Eastern rivals: France and Britain were modern, compact, efficiently-organized countries capable of rapid mobilization, while sprawling Russia with its thinly spread population and economic backwardness was expected to require up to 110 days for full mobilization. Taking advantage of this asymmetry, the German High Command developed the Schlieffen plan: upon the outbreak of hostilities, close to ninety percent of Germany’s effective troops would launch a lightning attack in the West; this campaign was to be completed within forty days, while lumbering Russia was still mobilizing. With the Western powers out of the way, massive troop transfers to the Eastern front were expected to arrive in time for Germany to face down Russia. Speed—of mobilization, of offensive operations, and of troop transfer—was critical to the success of this plan.

The assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke by a Serb nationalist in June, 1914, is the perfect example of an event which occasioned events which followed, but did not cause them; the men of Europe’s great powers did not slaughter one another for four years over a political assassination in the Balkans. Rather, the assassination occurred in the context of Russian guarantees to Serbia and German guarantees to Austria, which inevitably brought the Triple Entente into play. A diplomatic game of ‘chicken’ ensued, in which no side was willing to be the first to back down.

When Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28th, the Russian Tsar, conscious of his Empire’s military backwardness, ordered a partial mobilization. This action was intended merely as a precaution in case of a war that still seemed unlikely. But for the Germans, with their Schlieffen plan requiring utmost speed, the Tsar’s order had the effect of an electric shock. Germany felt it had to mobilize as well. Russia responded two days later by ordering full mobilization. Germany gave Russia an ultimatum; and the Tsar, unwilling to knuckle under, allowed the deadline to pass. Within hours, everyone was involved in a war that none of the parties had originally wanted or intended.

German historians call such a series of events a Betriebsunfall: a quasi-mechanical accident such as might occur in the machinery of a factory. Men were drawn into the gear work and crushed when no one was able to throw the emergency switch in time. It was a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word—a disaster brought on by well-intentioned but flawed men acting rationally under conditions of imperfect knowledge. The consequences are well-known: ten million dead, twenty-eight million more wounded or missing, Communism established in Russia, the Balfour Declaration setting the stage for today’s ongoing Middle East conflict, and the whole crowned by a shameful ‘peace’ treaty that all but guaranteed a future war of German revenge.

Yet, as we can see from newsreel footage of August 1st, the popular reaction to the outbreak was war fever on a scale not seen since the crusades. Europe had been enjoying forty-three years of peace and unprecedented material prosperity, and the young greeted the war as a romantic adventure.

The planned rapid German advance through the Low Countries into Northeast France was unexpectedly halted  in early September—the “Miracle of the Marne”—foiling the Schlieffen plan. On the 13th, the German Army responded by attempting a flanking action around the French lines; the French then rapidly extended their own defensive lines in what became known as the “race to the sea.” Since neither side could dislodge the other, and neither was willing to retreat, soldiers began digging themselves in to their positions—the beginning of trench warfare. By the time winter set in, the pattern of the next four years had been clearly established: a war of attrition involving trivial advances and retreats across a few acres of mud.

But as Christmas approached that year, something unexpected began unfolding. On the frontline sector south of Ypres, Belgium, German troops began decorating the area around their trenches for Christmas Eve. As Wikipedia describes it:

The Germans began by placing candles on their trenches and on Christmas trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols. The British responded by singing carols of their own. The two sides continued by shouting Christmas greetings to each other. Soon thereafter, there were excursions across No Man’s Land, where small gifts were exchanged, such as food, tobacco and alcohol, and souvenirs such as buttons and hats. The artillery in the region fell silent. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently killed soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties. Joint [religious] services were held.

The ceasefire spread to other sectors of the front, with as many as 100,000 men eventually participating. In some areas, soccer games between the belligerents replaced combat.

joyeux-noel

By December 26th, it was over. The authorities got word of the breakdown in discipline and intervened vigorously.

In 2005, an international consortium from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Romania produced a film about the Christmas Truce: Joyeux Noёl. The film opens with scenes of children in French, British and German grade schools reciting rhymed curses they had been taught against the opposing side: the British child’s curse calls for the complete extermination of Germans.

The scene switches to Scotland, where an enthusiastic young man, William, rushes into his local Catholic church breathlessly to announce to his younger brother Jonathan that war has been declared; they are to begin basic training in two days. “At last, something’s happening in our lives,” he rejoices. The priest, Fr. Palmer, looks notably less enthusiastic.

At the Berlin Opera, a performance is interrupted by an officer walking on stage to announce that war has been declared. The lead tenor, Sprink, is quickly called up.

In a French trench, Lieutenant Audebert wistfully looks at a photograph of his pregnant wife moments before being called to lead an assault on the German lines. In the ensuing action, Scottish William is mortally wounded; his brother Jonathan is forced to leave him behind, a psychological trauma from which he never recovers. Audebert’s men pour into a German trench, but as they turn a corner, some one-third of them are mown down by a German machine gun.

Meanwhile, Sprink’s lover, the Danish soprano Anna, receives permission to sing before the Crown Prince of Prussia. Sprink is called back from the front to perform with her, and is impressed with the luxurious comfort in which the German commanders are living. When he returns to the front, Anna insists on accompanying him, determined to sing for the ordinary frontline soldiers as well as the officers at headquarters. (The presence of a woman at the front is poetic license on the filmmakers’ part.)

The German soldiers begin setting up Christmas trees along their trenches, to the bewildered suspicion of the French soldiery. After the singers conclude their first number, a cheer goes up from the Scottish trenches. Fr. Palmer plays the first few bars of another Christmas song on the bagpipes, and Sprink responds by performing the song, climbing out into No Man’s Land. Lieutenant Audebert motions to his men to hold fire. Soon, men are pouring out of the trenches on both sides, sharing food and drinks. Fr. Palmer holds a Christmas Eve Mass for all the men.

On Christmas morning, the officers renew the truce and arrange for exchanging their dead. Dozens of men are buried between the lines. A soccer match ensues. The officers realize the situation is untenable and attempt to restore discipline, but by this time the men are refusing to fire upon each other.

A bundle of soldiers’ letters is intercepted by the French authorities, alerting them to the situation. Fearful of having their war spoiled, they dissolve the division and repost its members to various unaffected sectors of the front. The Germans are transferred to the Eastern front to face the Russians. Fr. Palmer is replaced by a Bishop who preaches a sermon urging new recruits to exterminate German men, women and children.

A major theme of the film is music. Sprink’s superior officer begins by telling him that, being a singer, he is useless as a soldier. Then it is the incongruous presence of music that leads to the unplanned ceasefire. At the end, as the Crown Prince of Prussia informs his men of their punishment, he catches sight of a harmonica. He snatches it away and crushes it beneath his boot heel.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 did not change the course of the war very much. In future years, commanders were successful in suppressing similar occurrences. As the war progressed and especially after poison gas was introduced, soldiers gradually came to see their enemies as less than human, as was the intention of the higher officers on all sides. But it has continued to spark the popular imagination in the near-century since it took place. A Canadian historian has written:

It [was] the last expression of that 19th-century world of manners and morals, where the opponent was a gentleman. The ones who survived, who lived to see other Christmases in the war, themselves expressed amazement that this had occurred. The emotions had changed to such a degree that the sort of humanity seen in Christmas 1914 seemed inconceivable.

Joyeux Noёl lost money at the box office, and critics have complained of its “sentimentality.” I suggest seeing it for oneself this Christmas season.

Great-Replaced: Half of Newborns in Belgium Have Foreign-Origin Mothers


First bar: births in 2020 by origin of the mother. Second bar: women of childbearing age by origin. Orange: native Belgians; blue: Belgian citizens of foreign origin; grey: foreigners.

The Great Replacement is a “discredited conspiracy theory,” but it also an empirical reality, wherever governments and agencies deem fit to publish the relevant figures.

France has long been loathe to publish such statistics, but neighboring Belgium — which has a similar history of recent immigration — is not so circumspect. The Belgian Federal Bureau for Planning recently published a highly interesting fact sheet on the national origin of mothers in Belgium.

The figures for 2020 show that Belgium now has a historically-low total fertility rate of 1.58 per woman. Of these, barely half of births (52.3%) are to native Belgian mothers. The rest are more-or-less evenly split between mothers who are Belgian citizens of foreign origin and foreign mothers.

Fertility rates differ drastically by origin, with native Belgian woman at a mere 1.38 and foreign women at 2.05 (48.5% higher).

Belgian citizens of foreign origin have a fertility rate of 1.58, suggesting a convergence of birth rates over time. Admittedly, interpretation is difficult as it is unclear what is included in this category. What proportion of these are Italian-origin Belgians (significant waves came from 1945 onward, now numbering around 450,000)? What proportion are Arabs or Congolese with Belgian passports? We don’t know.

Proportion by origin and age of women of child-bearing age, (orange: native Belgians, blue: Belgian citizens of foreign origin, grey: foreigners).

The replacement of the Belgian population will only ratchet up over time. Significantly, among 15-year-old girls, foreign-origin Belgian citizens and foreigners outnumber native Belgians more than two-to-one!

One struggles to find any previous examples in European history of population substitution on this scale. Probably one has to go all the way back to the Indo-European conquests circa 5000–4000 years ago.

The Belgian statistics are frustratingly unclear concerning the national origin of mothers in Belgium. “Citizens of foreign-origin” and “foreigners” indiscriminately include southern Europeans, eastern Europeans, Middle-Eastern Muslims, and Africans. There has been substantial European immigration to Belgium from Italy, Romania, and elsewhere.

It seems highly probable that European-origin mothers will have lower fertility rates than Africans and Muslims, though conceivably the latter converge somewhat in fertility with the natives over time.

Figures from the Belgian Statistics Agency revealed that in 2021 the proportion of native Belgians had fallen to a mere 67.3% of the population (from 74.3% in 2011 and 81.8% in 2001). The collapse of native Belgians is real, drastic, and ongoing.

Among Belgian citizens of foreign origin and foreigners, 48.3% are from neighboring or other EU countries and 51.7% from non-EU countries (mostly from the Maghreb, Turkey, and Black Africa). The proportion from non-EU countries has increased, being 38.4% in 2001 and 47.6% in 2011.

Thus, foreign-origin people in Belgium make up one third of the population, about evenly split between Europeans and non-Europeans. I suspect non-Europeans make up about a third of births in Belgium, similar to France.

Whatever one makes of all this, the Belgian population is being irreversibly transformed beyond recognition within a single lifetime.

The consequences for the native population have often been dire. In France, recent figures show that foreigners (not including citizens of foreign origin) make up 7.6% of the population but are two to four times more likely to commit crimes such as theft, sexual assault, and murder:

This does not even factor in French and Belgian citizens of African or Muslim origin. During a trial of the French-Jewish pundit Éric Zemmour for “hate speech,” the Socialist politician Jean-Pierre Chevènement came to Zemmour’s defense. He testified that as interior minister he received a daily list of crimes in France and most of the criminals had African or Muslim last names.[1] Note that Chevènement was Minister of the Interior from 1997–2000! The situation is no doubt even more stark today.

Beyond the decline in social capital and well-being, there are also plenty of signs the population change is leading to a collapse in any common values within the society. A recent poll by the respected agency IFOP found that 65% of young Muslim high-schoolers in France considered that “the norms and rules” of Islam “are more important than the laws of the Republic.”

The right is often faulted for being alarmist on immigration. Part of the reason for this is that the consequences of these trends take time to become apparent but also have tremendous momentum. The most extraordinary political courage will be necessary to hold back the tide, let alone roll it back. In any case, wholly preventable ethno-religious conflicts among Europeans, Blacks, and Muslims will continue to be facts of life in Western Europe for the foreseeable future. There is every likelihood these problems will worsen and, if nothing is done, will indeed become overwhelming.


[1]Éric Zemmour, La France n’a pas dit son dernier mot (Rubempré, 2021), p. 127

Rogen & Silverman in Santa Inc. and Other Christmas Excrescences

Seth Rogen & Silverman in Santa Inc. and Other Christmas Excrescences. The trailer is below.

The Tragic Fate of Hershel Fink

“What Julius, and the horde of other Jewish literary scholars, are really asserting here is their antagonism towards anything but positive reflections of Jews in literature, which is not only arrogant and unreasonable, but also further indication of a pathological level of ethnocentrism. Their efforts have the dual function of staining the legacy of the English literary past, and shackling authors in the present, who would feel constrained to avoid having a negatively portrayed Jewish character in their works.”
Review: Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora, February 2013.

In February 2013 I wrote the above paragraph and, like many paragraphs I’ve written in the years since then, I find myself drawn back to it time and time again. The most recent prompting occurred a week ago, when news emerged from London’s Royal Court theater that an undoubtedly virulent form of anti-Semitism was once again abroad in the world of the arts. The controversy surrounds a new play by Al Smith, Rare Earth Mettle, which portrays the billionaire CEO of an electric car company who presents himself as a kind of messianic figure while covertly attempting to monopolize the planet’s natural resources. The problem with the character rests exclusively on his name: Hershel Fink. By selecting this name, which certainly screams “Jew,” and associating it with billionaires, monopoly, and international villainy, the play’s writer had broken the unspoken rule alluded to in the paragraph from my 2013 book review. Mr Smith had dared to “have a negatively portrayed Jewish character” in his work.

Although Hershel Fink is not portrayed in any other way as having a Jewish heritage, the name alone was enough to provoke a huge backlash. The interim director of London’s Jewish Museum protested that “This image is a stereotype as it shows a Jewish person in a malevolent way, so it’s a racist depiction of a Jewish person – rich, controlling, in power … These are deeply hurtful stereotypes that have existed for centuries and is something that is very hurtful to the Jewish community today.” Both Royal Court and Al Smith immediately pleaded ignorance, saying they didn’t realize the name was Jewish. The Jewish comedian and writer David Baddiel took to Twitter to complain: “The Royal Court claims they didn’t realize ‘Hershel Fink’ was a Jewish name. Hmmm. Somehow it just sounded so right for a world-conquering billionaire.”

I can’t quite believe that the name’s Jewishness was completely missed by all concerned. My own opinion of the matter is that Smith was looking for an alien-sounding name that mimicked the syllables in “Elon Musk,” and that, while he was aware that the name had a Jewish quality, Smith was completely oblivious as to the seriousness of his infraction of unstated but powerful cultural rules — especially those concerning criticism of the Jews. I believe that “Hershel Fink” sounded right to Smith, for a number of reasons including its alien quality and a perhaps barely conscious appreciation of the idea that this would be an appropriate name for a global oligarch and arch villain. Smith’s schoolboy error, however, ensured that he would receive a brief and almost devastating instructional in Jewish cultural power. He got the message. “Hershel Fink” was disappeared down a memory hole, and the character was renamed Henry Finn, the last name being of Irish origin and meaning, curiously enough, “white” or “fair-haired.” It seems our fictional Jewish world-grasper has been traded for an Aryan one.

That the play advanced so far in production, in this age when gatekeepers are everywhere, is remarkable in itself. Objections were apparently raised in early September, when “the name had been raised by a Jewish director in a workshop discussion held as part of the series “Directors: Working on New Plays.” The leadership of the Royal Court has now professed itself “in conversations with this director as we hold ourselves accountable for why this was not taken further or passed on to the writer,” as well as engaging in “an internal review” and working with members of the Jewish community to “understand how this harm was committed.” In other words, they are grovelling for their failure to acknowledge and acquiesce to their appointed gatekeepers.

The Cultural Code

The episode raises a number of interesting questions and themes. The first concerns cultural codes. It’s tempting for those “in the know” to laugh at the bovine naïveté of Smith and his colleagues, and there is a darkly comic element to the tragic fate of Hershel Fink — who will unfortunately never see an audience. But what this naïveté suggests is that many of those who wish to advance in the arts need to possess at least some knowledge of the cultural code, which in turn involves at least some appreciation of Jewish influence. In other words, to be truly oblivious to, and in denial of, Jewish influence is potentially dangerous. The ignorant, like Mr Smith, will simply stumble into infractions of a code they are unaware of. The ideal scenario, for those overseeing the status quo, is for Jewish power to be acknowledged (an otherwise anti-Semitic position) but unstated (leading to compliance). We’ve seen multiple instances from the arts in the past where common knowledge of Jewish influence has been expressed publicly, with disastrous consequences for those speaking out.

One need only think of Marlon Brando, a lifetime flamboyant philo-Semite, who “broke down and wept” before several Jewish leaders in 1996 after he broke the code and commented publicly that “Hollywood was run by Jews.” It was perfectly fine for Brando to know this, and to have it moderate his behavior and creative choices, but it became “anti-Semitic” in a very political sense the moment it moved from mere acknowledgment to public conversation. Brando was very close to Jews for most of his life, and knew their rules better than anyone, but he made the mistake of thinking he could be seen as one of them or be exempt from their injunctions. Perhaps even more important than Brando’s basic comment on Jewish influence in Hollywood was the wider context of his statement, delivered during an interview on Larry King Live, where he addressed the very theme that Al Smith stumbled upon — the Jewish injunction against negative portrayals of themselves in art:

We’ve seen the nigger, and the Greaseball. We’ve seen the Chink. We’ve seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap. We have seen the wily Filipino. We’ve seen everything. But we never saw the kike because they knew perfectly well that that’s where you draw the wagons around.

Everything Brando said is objectively true, doubtless learned by Brando over many years of close engagement with Jews, but it was an infraction against the cultural code to express it publicly. The very proof of Brando’s claim that Jews run Hollywood was the overwhelming pressure subsequently brought to bear on him (some newspapers spoke of the “rage” of Jewish leaders) to recant his statement. The episode with Al Smith, meanwhile, is simply more proof that we’ll never see “the kike” on screen or on stage because this is where the cultural overseers “draw the wagons.”

No Jewish Villains

A second theme raised by the Al Smith controversy, then, is that of the censorship of the Jewish villain. In a 2011 article published by YnetNews, Amir Bogen asks: “Where have Jewish villains gone?” Bogen writes,

Israelis have become outcasts abroad. We’re called murderers, racists, even occupiers. Is that they way we are perceived by the world? And if so, where the hell have cinema’s Jewish villains gone?

The question can, of course, be answered perfectly with another question: Who controls the cinema? Bogen remarks that “It seems that since Shakespeare’s Shylock (“The Merchant of Venice”) and Jew Süss (from Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda film), the Hebrew antagonists have disappeared from popular culture.” The case of Magneto, a villain from the X-Men film franchise, is highlighted as an example of Jewishness being written into a character in order to ameliorate rather than accentuate their evil qualities. Magneto was originally designed in the 1930s as an arch villain with no redeeming qualities until a 1981 edition of the X-Men comic unveiled the character’s past as a “Holocaust survivor,” thereafter making him “less aggressive, less racist, much more complex, and even neurotic and traumatized.” In terms of the recent film versions, Magneto is portrayed extremely negatively, but his Jewishness is played for sympathy only at strategic moments in the plot, and is abandoned in almost every other respect. Bogen highlights that

Hollywood doesn’t allow Magneto an accent that would signify his [Jewish] origin or ethnicity. Both Michael Fassbender [German-Irish] and Ian McKellan [British] portray him with a British cadence, despite the established origin.

Bogen hints that the question of the absence of Jewish villains is ultimately bound up with censorship by ending the piece with the suggestion that “these questions should not be directed at Marvel, or the Justice League of America, but rather at the Anti-Defamation League.”

Writing in the aftermath of the Al Smith affair, journalist David Aaronovitch elaborated on the Jewish unease with cultural representations of Jewish villainy by asking what would in fact be acceptable to Jews:

This is a problem. A Jew can’t be a banker (Rothschild), a financier (Shylock), an organiser of pickpockets (Fagin) or a dubious entrepreneur (Melmotte). It goes wider. The forged/plagiarised Protocols of the Elders of Zion famously put Jews in charge of everything, from trades unions to newspapers via pornography and (of course) banking. So almost anything associated with power, money and secret manipulation is out. … Infernal slyness and mendacity are no good either. Jewish “shapeshifting” is also a stereotype. Nor would an anti-patriotic, anti-national, cosmopolitan Jew be unworrying. Blofeld has to be German, no? Imagine Bond breaking into that underground cavern and coming across a cat-stroker in a kippah.

Aaronovitch, like Bogen, concludes that the only acceptable Jewish villains are those of an “amiable” type (e.g. cinematic representations of Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky) that have been portrayed by non-Jewish actors like Robert de Niro. Even here, however, the Jewishness of these characters is watered down in the extreme by the time they reach cinema screens.

“Subliminal Anti-Semitism”

An interesting example of the portrayal of Jewish villains going awry is Nicolas Winding Refn’s 2011 Drive. The film concerns the clash between a Hollywood stunt driver played by Ryan Gosling and two Jewish mobsters played by Albert Brooks (born Albert Lawrence Einstein) and Ron Perlman. Both Jewish mobsters are thus portrayed by ethnic Jews, and their Jewishness is referred to in a number of ways throughout the movie, including subtle references to crypsis. In one memorable instance Ron Perlman’s character Nino comes upon Bernie Rose (played by Brooks) in his restaurant:

NINO: What are you doing eating Chink food in my restaurant?

BERNIE ROSE: What’s a Jew doing running a Pizzeria?

The exchange is a further play on the fact “Nino” is in fact “Izzy,” whose apparent play-acting as an Italian pizzeria-owner (a mere front operation for broader criminality) is a source of amusement to the more up-front Rose. Rose later explains to another character in the film: “I ever tell you how long Izzy and I been friends? Since we were six. Only Jews in a neighborhood of wops.” We suspect therefore that Izzy became “Nino” in part as a survival strategy, in a perfect artistic representation of ideas put forth in the sixth chapter of Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents.

Although these are the only explicit references to the Jewishness of Rose and Izzy in the script, in 2011 a Jewish woman, Sarah Deming, brought a class action lawsuit against the film’s makers, alleging that the movie was “subliminally” anti-Semitic. When the initial case was rejected, Deming “tried to get the judge removed from the case for allegedly being anti-Semitic himself.” David Leaf, a lawyer in the case, explained the grievance:

Real life Jewish gangsters, such as Mickey Cohen, Meyer Lansky and Bugsey Seigel, were portrayed in film as good fathers and sympathetic characters. … Not so with the cartoon one dimensional Jews in Drive, right down to the gold pinkie rings, gold watch, and thick gold chains, that only a “senior citizen Jew stereotype” department could have come up with. … When the gangsters embody most, if not all false negative Jewish stereotypes, that’s racism. The whole Nino/Izzy slur, straight from Nazi propaganda, about the Jew never fitting in, but always trying to mask his identity. Or the false racist canard about Jews being a threat to the Christian child. Both incorporated here, neither necessary to be a gangster. I could go on for each of the Jew hating stereotypes that the Jews in the movie ‘just so happen’ to embody.

In the text of the lawsuit, particular attention is paid to the fact the Jewish characters were:

Money hungry; lustful; evil; corrupting; controlling everything behind the scenes; a threat to the wife and child; loyalty to each other – to the detriment of the Gentiles; rude; pushy; gaudy; usurious, violent, etc….

Other instances highlighted as “subliminally” anti-Semitic included the framing of certain shots, the most important of which is probably a scene in which Bernie Rose kills the stunt driver’s employer, Mr. Shannon, in the latter’s workshop. Rose slices open one of Shannon’s arms, severing arteries with one slash of an ornate antique razor. The movement itself is arguably reminiscent of kosher slaughter, but the primary complaint made by several Jews is that the backdrop to the scene is a workshop wall with beams that appear to form a Star of David.

 

In the text of the lawsuit we see it complained that:

In the above scene, Rose says, “Don’t worry, don’t worry, that’s it, its done, there’s no pain, its over”, a cynical reference to the arguments in favor of Kosher slaughter. Cynical because Shannon is obviously suffering and conscious of his fate. Rose then washes the blade, and puts the blade in a gold case, all elements of Kosher Slaughter. As Rose closes the case, the Jewish ritual blade cuts across the reflection of the Church Steeple, a nonconscious message that Jews and Judaism are the enemy of Christians and Christianity.

I don’t believe that the film’s director or cinematographer intentionally crafted these scenes to foster “subliminal” anti-Semitism, nor do I even believe they unintentionally crafted a work of subliminal anti-Semitism. I do, however, believe the entire affair surrounding Drive illustrates a remarkable paranoia concerning negative representations of Jews in mass culture, that reaches back to the image of Judas in the New Testament, passes through that of Shakespeare’s Shylock, and is very much alive and well in the censorship and elimination/transformation of Hershel Fink. What the furor over Drive and Hershel Fink really illustrate is that the only acceptable Jewish villain in popular literature or cinema is a Jewish gangster who isn’t played by a Jew and who isn’t money hungry, lustful, evil, corrupting, controlling, threatening to women or children, loyal only to his own kind, rude, pushy, gaudy, usurious, or violent. In short, there is no representation of genuine villainy acceptable to Jews.

The Semitic Discourse

A third theme raised by the Hershel Fink episode is the general unease of Jews when it comes to cultural knowledge about them in the wider population. They don’t just want to censor negative depictions because it offends them, but because of what effect the depictions might have on the wider population. One of the more interesting works on anti-Semitism published in the last 30 years is Bryan Cheyette’s Cambridge-published Constructions of ‘the Jew’ in English Literature and Society: Racial Representations 1875–1945 (1993). Cheyette’s central thesis is that, extrinsic to explicit references to Jews in British literature and theater, there existed what he called a “Semitic discourse.” This discourse informed attitudes toward Jews even where individual knowledge or experience with Jews was weak or non-existent. In other words, even if the average Englishman had never personally met a Jew, there was enough of the discourse subtly present in his culture to inform him that Jews were, for example, not to be trusted in business or very strongly concerned with money. The concept of the Semitic discourse is fluid enough that it could encapsulate novels like Dracula, where the foreignness of the Count, his physical features, and several of his traits could themselves be viewed as conveying (negative) knowledge or ideas about Jews. Conversely, Cheyette also acknowledged that philo-Semitic elements permeated the Semitic discourse, and that Christian Zionists imbibed heavily from cultural streams that placed Jews in the role of the apple of God’s eye. The Semitic discourse was thus a pool of ideas, in general circulation in the culture, that could be drawn upon at any time and by anyone.

Cheyette, who is Jewish, advanced his thesis primarily as an attack on English culture. One of his most scathing concluding arguments, for example, is that “A semitic discourse in liberal England can … be implicated in the Holocaust.” That’s quite a leap of logic. Aside from this malicious usage, however, I find myself in close agreement with much that Cheyette has to say on the subject. I agree, for example, that English culture possessed and disseminated certain streams of knowledge about Jews, and that it had done so from at least the time of Shakespeare. But I diverge from Cheyette on two points.

The first is that I believe the Semitic discourse was, for the most part, a good and useful thing. I think it’s healthy for any people to develop methods of knowledge that inform interactions with out-groups. The second, related, point is that Cheyette is disingenuous in his failure to acknowledge that all peoples do in fact formulate cultural discourses about outsiders. We could very easily write a book or two on a Goyim Discourse in Jewish literature and film (from the Talmud to the present day), which informs Jews in subtle and not-so-subtle ways that Europeans, especially the rural kind, are dangerous, superstitious, stupid, irrational, and gullible. Bryan Cheyette himself admits, in an essay in the volume Jewish Writers of the Twentieth Century that one of Britain’s foremost Jewish novelists, Howard Jacobson, wrote “anti-Gentile novels,” specifically Coming from Behind (1983) and Peeping Tom (1984).[1] In terms of representation on film, no group has fared worse in the hands of Jewish Hollywood than the Southern Whites, as illustrated in John Cone’s excellent Patterns of Bias in Hollywood Movies (2012).[2] The book’s sixth chapter is almost exclusively concerned with a multitude of Jewish writers and directors who collectively produced endless films depicting rural White Americans, especially Southern men and women, as childish, inept, irrational, petty, and brutal.

Conclusion: Whither Hershel Fink?

The Goyim Discourse is currently everywhere, and the Semitic Discourse has all but vanished; sanitized out of existence through censorship, legal changes, and cultural control. The vanishing of Hershel Fink and his replacement with Henry Finn is perfect proof of this dynamic in action. The episode sheds light on the impossibility of representing Jewish villainy, and the return of the Jews to a state of legal and cultural protection not seen since the hofjuden of the early modern period. Ironically, Al Smith’s play concerns a billionaire who poses as benevolent before destroying a number of South American economies in the malicious satisfaction of his endless greed. A worthy template would therefore be found less in Elon Musk than in the Zionist Paul Singer, once described by The Independent as “the vulture capitalist who devoured Peru.” With plenty of real international villains like that, who needs fiction?


[1] S. Kerbel (ed) Jewish Writers of the Twentieth Century (New York: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2003), 14.

[2] See in particular Chapter 6: Regional Prejudice: Hollywood’s Rape of the South.